Page 42 - An Evidence Review of Active Surveillance in Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) database) along with terms for prostate
cancer. This search was supplemented by a MEDLINE search (from inception through August,
2011) combining terms relevant to observational management strategies (e.g., WW, AS,
expectant management) along with terms for prostate cancer; the search strategy was based on
7
expanding a previously published set of keywords. We also performed a targeted literature
a
search for economic evaluations using the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry , a curated
database of cost-effectiveness analyses maintained by the Center for the Evaluation of Value and
Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center (the search was performed on November 2, 2011; at that
time the registry contained data up to 2010).
Additional citations were provided by members of the TEP and were reviewed against the
same inclusion and exclusion criteria that were used for studies identified through the database
searches. We also perused the reference lists of the eligible primary studies and relevant review
articles to identify additional potentially relevant studies.
For the question (Key Question 3) related to factors affecting AS, we did not do a targeted
search of the individual factors, instead we relied on primary studies and systematic reviews
already identified via the above searches.
We did not include unpublished data (such as abstracts or meeting proceedings) for this
review.
After running each search, abstracts were entered in an electronic database and
nonoverlapping sets of citations were screened by a single investigator.
We identified ongoing studies (provided in Appendix B) through perusal of reference lists,
review articles and citations from the TEP.

Study Selection and Eligibility Criteria

Based on input from the TEP and the TOO, we developed selection criteria for identifying
studies for each Key Question. These criteria were different for systematic reviews and primary
research studies and are summarized below. For all Key Questions we excluded editorials, letters
to the editor, narrative reviews, and any other publications not presenting research results or
describing the protocols of primary research studies. We only considered English language
studies.

Systematic Reviews, Evidence Reports, Economic Evaluations

We defined systematic reviews as studies using explicit methods to search, identify and
synthesize primary research studies. Reviews utilizing both qualitative or quantitative (meta-
analysis) methods to synthesize the available evidence were considered eligible, as long as they
provided information considered relevant to the Key Questions.
For Key Question 1, in addition to systematic reviews we also reviewed the latest version of
1
the Cancer Statistics report prepared annually by the American Cancer Society , a recent SEER
3
2
Survival Monograph , the 2009/2010 update of the Cancer Trends Progress Report , and data
b
available on the SEER Web site.
For Key Question 2, we only used the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews to
identify additional primary studies providing definitions of observational management strategies.

a Available at https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear4/SearchingtheCEARegistry/SearchtheCEARegistry.aspx; last
accessed October 31, 2011.
b Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/; last accessed September 30, 2011.

7